Anna Raccoon Archives

Post navigation

Free tattoo removal

The Anna Raccoon Archives

by SadButMadLad on May 9, 2011

It seems that the benefit claimants can have the cost of having their tattoos removed paid for by Job Center Plus if it means that they might get a job. It’s already been done in 2002 according to the head of JCP, Darra Singh.

We find this out because David Ruffley, Conservative MP for Bury St Edmunds, Stowmarket, and Needham Market, asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Chris Grayling, what he knew about payments from the public purse for the removal of tattoos from benefit claimants.

Though Darra Singh replied that detail about what a claimant might by funded for is not recorded he did mention the 2002 case.

I can understand claimants having training courses be paid for if their current industry is outdated. I have personal experience of this with a close relative having a training course paid for after she was made redundant with her job role being hens teeth to get. But to have tattoos removed seems to me to be a step too far. The decision as to whether a training course is provided or tattoos removed or money given to get special work clothes is a decision is not a national policy but made by a “Decision Maker” (actual job title) so it could be that the tattooed claimant had very good reasons for the removal.

But should unemployed people be paid over and above their benefits to help them get jobs. I understand that travel costs can be covered but how far should the state go in helping people get a job.

The Magster provided me with an excellent 3 months TOPS retraining course back in 1980. The taxes I paid from my pretty well-paid IT job that resulted from it will have more than paid for it. Many times over. That was well-targeted job training.

There are some companies situated in high unemployment areas that prefer to employ EE workers with minimal accommodation overheads on minimum wage who are uncomplaining as they are only likely to be there for 3-6 months so unconcerned about work practices. Even easier once they ease the local managers out and employ EE managers, which makes sense as they speak the lingo; then English becomes the minority language and the signage is changed to Polish. Wonderful as the EE employee even gets Child Benefit for children left ‘at home’. Great for profits.

With the demise of jobs where people have no direct contact with customers it’s probably more important these days. I did holiday jobs years ago where some people reeked of weeks’ old B.O. and a conversation consisted of “eff off” (if they liked you). As a temporary employee at Buck House you have to put up with it when the employers are like that.

I was a Personal Advisor in a JobCentre and found the ADF scheme very good value for money helping long-term unemployed get back into work. Many people do not save and do not have a rainy-day fund to resort to, besides after six months’ unemployment it’s exhausted. I authorised new work clothes, a fortnight’s bus pass (how does one get to work before wages are paid?) or a cheap bike for people working shifts outside public transport hours. We could refer long term or vulnerable claimants to private-sector job-search companies who were paid by results and had considerably more freedom spending money to remove barriers to employment – I recall one famous company paid for a gastric band operation. All in all, ADF and the other schemes helped many people get long term jobs that meant they could stop claiming benefits.

It’s pretty clear that good looking people are more likely to get on in life, including in the jobs market, than ugly bastards like me. I could now be paying lots of tax, if only I could get a decent job. Give me free cosmetic surgery, it’ll be a good investment!

I had a man seek employment from me once who had a mohican hair cut. He thought that would preclude him from employment. When I was your age I told him, we sewed our own zips and chains into our clothes. Why would I assume your taste in music would affect your ability to do a job?

The tattoo has to be removed because the society assigns a whole lot of baggage to the wearer. “Tramp Stamp” being a case in point. If a few pounds of expenditure transforms the work prospects of the tatooee then what is it that we find so objectionable? If we had employers who were without prejudice then the removal would not be necessary, but the contempt shown on some of the comments here shows that they too would have judged the job seeker on some system other than their merits as a potential employee.

What a refreshing change to see commenters recognising the real story here. Makes a nice change from the usual working class bashing that usually appears. Mind you there is always one who responds with the normal knee jerk reaction.